← All Phrases

“Section 139(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(1)7,818 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Judgments citing Section 139(1)

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 931/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

efflux of time or by mandate of the Act. Since, the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act nor in regular assessment proceedings by way of filing any revised return therefore returns filed in response to notice under Section ... file a return under sub-section (3) within the time permitted and only upon which the same would be treated as return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Counsel for the revenue submitted that when no return in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 139 claiming carry forward

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Ravi Mehra, 1121, Sector 10, Panchkula 134109, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panchkula, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

valid for reopening is incorrect as the assessee was not liable to file his income tax return as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act since his income was below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax and the AO has taken the same income as returned

Shrikant Anantrao Zori, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 798/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Patakh &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Mr Kedar Jagdish Mankar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1624/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

S. Kalpana, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2902/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal invoking Section 249(3) of the Act on account of the delay of 817 days in filing appeal without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujan and ShriFor Respondent: Shri. Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 249(3)Section 69A

information received from AIMS under NMS Priority-PZ category, the assessee has not filed her return of income as per the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. The ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has deposited cash deposits and commodity transactions totalling

Bachira Uthaiah Poovaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2410/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 90

requirement of filing Form 67 as per the provision of rule 128 of IT Rule on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act, is a directory requirement, therefore FTC should be allowed even if the Form-67 is filed before the completion of assessment ... claimed, including the requirement to furnish Form No. 67 along with supporting documents before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Sub-rule 9 of Rule 128 explicitly mandates that Form No. 67 and relevant certificates must be submitted within the prescribed time

Sree Basaweshwar Vyasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Limited Devihosur, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2395/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

reason that the return of income was filed after the expiry of time specified for filling of the return under section 139(1) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 6. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that ... extended due date for filling return under section 139(1) of the Act was expiring on 7th November 2022 and the return of income was filed before that date, but the return was verified after expiry of extended due date. Accordingly, the assessee contended the benefit extended under section

H Venkatesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1669/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271F of the Act for the assessee’s failure to file a return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee furnished the same explanation of severe illness during the proceedings under section 271F of the Act, and in that proceeding

M/S. Amrut Distilleries Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 950/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

return of income u/s 153A of the Act , declaring total income of Rs.24,66,77,460/-. The assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.19,92,03,920/-. Subsequently, the statutory notice was issued to the assessee. The assessee

M/S. Amrut Distilleries Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 949/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

return of income u/s 153A of the Act , declaring total income of Rs.24,66,77,460/-. The assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.19,92,03,920/-. Subsequently, the statutory notice was issued to the assessee. The assessee

M/S. Amrut Distilleries Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 948/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

return of income u/s 153A of the Act , declaring total income of Rs.24,66,77,460/-. The assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.19,92,03,920/-. Subsequently, the statutory notice was issued to the assessee. The assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Khamgaon vs. Renuka Oil Industries, Khamgaon

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 390/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 35A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMC MATTER ITA no.390/Nag

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Chandrapur vs. Nitin Subhash Sharma, Chandrapur

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

ITA 364/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Chandrapur vs. Nitin Subhash Sharma, Chandrapur

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

ITA 363/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Chandrapur vs. Nitin Subhash Sharma, Chandrapur

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

ITA 362/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY

Cochin Shipyard Employees Mutual and Public Welfare Trust, Cochin vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 249/COCH/2024[AY 2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.T. Mohanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA

Cochin Shipyard Employees Muthual and Public Welfare Trust, Perumanur vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Kochi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 248/COCH/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.T. Mohanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM ITA

Prem Lata Pandya, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1471/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1471/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2019-20 Prem Lata Pandya बनाम Deputy Commissioner of 302, Raj Mension, D-299, Vs. Income Tax, Tulsi Marg Bani Park, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.:ACXPJ9951A निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Sh. S.L.Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh

For Appellant: Sh. S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 127Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Pani Purvatha Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Kolhapur, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2663/PUN/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2663/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pani Purvatha Karmachari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit S Kolhapur. Kolhapur, 431-E Tej Apartment, Basant – Bahar Road, Shahupuri, Kolhapur – 416001. Pan: Aaaap1588M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Harshit Dilip Bari – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 21.11.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

that assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society, registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Assessee had filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. In the assessment order, Assessing ITA No.2663/PUN/2024 [A] Officer had allowed deduction of Rs.37,04,045/- under section